Trump Fires Up Europe’s Anti-Establishment Movement

“This year will be the year of the people.”

  • “The genie will not go back into the bottle again, whether you like it or not.” — Geert Wilders, MP and head of the Party for Freedom, the Netherlands.
  • A growing number of Europeans are rebelling against decades of government-imposed multiculturalism, politically correct speech codes and mass migration from the Muslim world.
  • Europe’s establishment parties, far from addressing the concerns of ordinary voters, have tried to silence dissent by branding naysayers as xenophobes, Islamophobes and neo-Nazis.
  • “In many respects, France and Germany are proving they do not understand the meaning of Brexit. They are reflexively, almost religiously, following exactly the path that has provoked the EU’s current existential crisis.” — Ambassador John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
  • “There is a genuine feeling that Trump taking over the White House is part of a bigger, global movement. Our critics, looking at Trump’s candidacy and his speech yesterday, would call it the rise of populism. I would say it’s simply a return to nation state democracy and proper values…. This is a genuine political revolution.” — Nigel Farage, former head of Britain’s UKIP party, who led the effort for the United Kingdom to leave the EU.
  • “This disruption is fruitful. The taboos of the last few years are now fully on the agenda: illegal immigration, Islam, the nonsense of open borders, the dysfunctional EU, the free movement of people, jobs, law and order. Trump’s predecessors did not want to talk about it, but the majority of voters did. This is democracy.” — Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Weltwoche, Switzerland.

Inspired by the inauguration of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, the leaders of Europe’s main anti-establishment parties have held a pan-European rally aimed at coordinating a political strategy to mobilize potentially millions of disillusioned voters in upcoming elections in Germany, the Netherlands and France.

Appearing together in public for the first time, Marine Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, Frauke Petry, leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s Northern League and Harald Vilimsky of Austria’s Freedom Party gathered on January 21 at a rally in Koblenz, Germany, where they called on European voters to participate in a “patriotic spring” to topple the European Union, reassert national sovereignty and secure national borders.

The two-hour rally was held under the banner of the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF), a group established in June 2015 by Members of the European Parliament from nine counties to oppose European federalism and the transfer of political power from voters to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union.Referring to the June 2016 decision by British voters to leave the European Union, and the rise of President Donald Trump in the United States, Le Pen said:

“We are living through the end of one world, and the birth of another. We are experiencing the return of nation-states. 2016 was the year the Anglo-Saxon world woke up. 2017, I am sure, will be the year in which the peoples of the European continent rise up.”

Wilders added:

“The world is changing. America is changing. Europe is changing. It started last year with Brexit, yesterday there was Trump and today the freedom-loving parties gathered in Koblenz are making a stand. The genie will not go back into the bottle again, whether you like it or not. The people of the West are awakening. They are throwing off the yoke of political correctness.”

Polls indicate that the political sea change engulfing the United States is fueling support for anti-establishment parties in Europe. In addition to anger over eroding sovereignty, a growing number of Europeans are rebelling against decades of government-imposed multiculturalism, politically correct speech codes and mass migration from the Muslim world.

In France, a new Ipsos poll for Le Monde shows that Marine Le Pen is now poised to win the first round of the French presidential election set for April 23, 2017. Le Pen has between 25% and 26% support among likely voters, compared to 23% and 25% for François Fillon of the center-right Republicans party. In December 2016, Fillon held a three-point lead over Le Pen.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders is now leading polls ahead of the general election scheduled for March 15, 2017. The PVV has the support of between 29% and 33% of the electorate. By contrast, support for the ruling People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) has fallen to between 23% and 27%.

In Germany, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party (AfD) has become the third-largest party the country, with support at around 15% percent. The AfD had gained representation in ten of Germany’s 16 state parliaments, and the party hopes to win seats in the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) for the first time in national elections set for September 24, 2017.

Europe’s establishment parties, far from addressing the concerns of ordinary voters, have tried to silence dissent by branding naysayers as xenophobes, Islamophobes and neo-Nazis.

In Germany, for example, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, in an underhanded effort to silence criticism of the government’s open door migration policy, called for German intelligence to begin monitoring the AfD.

The German Interior Ministry is now proposing to establish a “Defense Center against Disinformation” (Abwehrzentrum gegen Desinformation) to combat “fake news.” Critics have described the proposed center as a “censorship monster” aimed at silencing dissenting opinions.

Enter Trump. If sufficient numbers of European voters are inspired by the political transformation taking place in the United States, the balance of European political power may begin to shift in favor of the anti-establishment parties. European political and media elites will therefore surely view Trump as a threat to the Europe’s established political order.

In a January 16 interview with the Times of London and Germany’s Bild, Trump said he believed that Brexit is “going to end up being a great thing.” He added that German Chancellor Angela Merkel made an “utterly catastrophic mistake by letting all these illegals into the country.”

In the same interview, Trump said that the NATO alliance “is very important to me” but he called it “obsolete” for failing to contain the threat posed to the West by Islamic terrorism. He also complained that some countries “don’t pay what they should pay.” Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five — Britain, Estonia, Greece, Poland and the United States — meet the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense.

European commentators roundly criticized Trump for his comments and some accused the United States of being an “unreliable partner.” European leaders repeated calls for a pan-European Army, a long-held goal of European federalists, which would entail an unprecedented transfer of sovereignty from European nation states to the European Union.

Gatestone Institute Chairman Ambassador John R. Bolton, has provided much-needed context to the debate over NATO. In a recent article for the Boston Globe, he wrote:

“NATO has taken intense criticism this year from Donald Trump, evoking howls of outrage from foreign-policy establishment worthies. The worthies know, however, that Trump is simply using his bullhorn to say what they themselves say more quietly: NATO’s decision-making is often sclerotic; its mission has not been adequately redefined after the Cold War; and too many members haven’t carried their weight financially or militarily for long years…. Trump has emphasized that his complaints are intended to encourage debate about improving and strengthening NATO, not sundering it. The debate is well worth having.”

Bolton added:

“In many respects, France and Germany are proving they do not understand the meaning of Brexit. They are reflexively, almost religiously, following exactly the path that has provoked the EU’s current existential crisis: every failure of closer integration by the ‘European project’ leads only to calls for more integration. Whether it is establishing a currency without a government; pledging military capabilities that collectively the EU never achieves; or pretending to an EU role in world affairs that no one outside of Brussels takes seriously, ‘more Europe’ is always the answer.”

European Reactions to President Trump’s Inauguration

Trump’s presidential inauguration speech was greeted with formal politeness by European leaders — most of whom will have to work with the new leader of the free world — and with unbridled derision by European commentators and media elites — many of whom appear to be in denial about the anti-establishment fervor sweeping the United States and Europe.

Much of the European commentary about Trump has consisted of name-calling and anti-Americanism. A handful of European analysts, however, have called for introspection and self-criticism.

What follows is a brief selection of European commentary on Trump’s inauguration:

In Britain, reactions to Trump were evenly divided between those who do and do not support British membership in the European Union. Prime Minister Theresa May said:

“From our conversations to date, I know we are both committed to advancing the special relationship between our two countries and working together for the prosperity and security of people on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson wrote:

“I think that the new president has made it very clear that he wants to put Britain at the front of the line for a new trade deal and obviously that’s extremely exciting and important.”

Nigel Farage, the politician who led the effort for the United Kingdom to leave the EU, was one of the few Europeans to understand the magnitude of Trump’s rise. He wrote:

“There is a genuine feeling that Trump taking over the White House is part of a bigger, global movement. Our critics, looking at Trump’s candidacy and his speech yesterday, would call it the rise of populism. I would say it’s simply a return to nation state democracy and proper values. For this inauguration is not just a change from the 44th President to the 45th President of the United States. This is a genuine political revolution.”

In France, President François Hollande advised Trump to stay out of European affairs — this a few days after the French government tried to impose a “two-state solution” on Israel. He said: “Europe will be ready to pursue transatlantic cooperation, but it will be based on its interests and values. It does not need outside advice to tell it what to do.”

Marine Le Pen said: “Clearly, the victory of Donald Trump is another step toward the emergence of a new world, whose vocation is to replace an old order.”

Jean-Marie Colombani, the former editor-in-chief of Le Monde, articulated Europe’s geopolitical predicament, which is the direct consequence of a failure to prioritize French defense spending:

“From an American point of view, Vladimir Putin is a secondary problem: Russia is a medium power, which can certainly create problems for the United States, but only marginally, as in Syria, for example. China is the only power to rival the United States. It will be, already is, the only obsession of Trump’s America.

“Vladimir Putin represents a problem, if not a threat, for Europe. In fact, the Russian President has set the goal of weakening the European Union, in order to restore the role of guardian that the USSR exercised in the East of Europe, in countries that are now members of the EU and NATO. Everything suggests that Trump shares the same objective: to weaken Europe.

“Indeed, Trump’s European policy is inspired by Nigel Farage, who spearheaded the campaign for Brexit, and whose political aim is now to achieve the dismantling of the European Union. This explains the prediction formulated by Trump on the soon-coming demise of Europe, and his anti-German undertones. In the new American president we find the language and elements of all the populist and extremist parties whose common doctrine is hostility towards the European project. Here, then, in the East and the West, Europe is squeezed as in a vise!”

In Germany, which is wholly dependent upon the United States for defense, and which has steadfastly refused to meet its commitment to pay 2% of GDP on defense, reaction to Trump’s speech was overwhelmingly negative.

Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged to work with Trump to preserve the transatlantic relationship. “The trans-Atlantic relationship will not be less important in the coming years than it was in past years,” she said. “And I will work on that. Even when there are different opinions, compromises and solutions can be best found when we exchange ideas with respect.”

Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel was far less diplomatic. He said: “We have to take this man seriously. What we heard today were highly nationalistic tones. I think we have to prepare for a rough ride.” He called on Europeans to unite to “defend our interests.”

Writing for Deutsche Welle, commentator Max Hofmann admonished Europeans to stop complaining about Trump and instead put their own house in order:

“What do you do when your closest partner just disappears on you? You do what the EU should have done long ago: you fix up your home, regardless of what ‘The Donald’ is doing in the USA. There is enough work that needs to be done in Europe with regard to ‘putting your own house in order’ — Brexit, migration and refugee policies, the euro. If Europeans were honest to themselves and viewed what is happening on the old continent from the American perspective — and not just that one — then the situation would not be comprehensible to them. If US parliamentarians were to call European dissent ‘madness’ or ‘nonsense,’ no one could blame them.”

Commentator Hubert Wetzel said that Trump posed a threat to European security and called for European unity to weather the next four years. In an essay laced with hyperbole, he wrote:

“Europeans will have to adapt to a new tone in dealing with America. Trump has made it clear in his speech that he will pursue a nationalist foreign policy, and his speech contained no reference to America’s allies. [Trump actually said: ‘We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones,’ and ‘We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world’]. His willingness to spend money on the defense of other countries is limited. He does not see the USA as a protective power of democratic values in the world; and he is the first U.S. president since the end of the Second World War who has openly expressed doubts about the value of European unity and the existence of NATO. At a time when Russia is trying to weaken the West by means of diplomatic, intelligence, and military means, it is an attitude that is a serious threat to united Europe.”

In Spain, geopolitical analyst Rafael Bardají wrote:

“President Trump promised that a new era is beginning today. In his inaugural speech he made it very clear that he despises Washington and hates the way the establishment has ruled the country up until now, defending its privileges at the expense of citizens. Yes, a speech that can be called populist, but one that nevertheless is true. Democracy, after all, emerged as the government of the people for the people, something that, at present, is far from being a reality in America as well as in Europe. The great social contract of liberal democracy, namely, growing prosperity and peace and security for the citizens, is no longer being fulfilled. This is due to the inability of our elites to deal with the [economic] crisis, due to their obsession with pacifism and due to the subordination of the interests of nationals in favor of immigrants.”

In Switzerland, Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Weltwoche, warned against efforts by European elites to belittle Trump. He wrote:

“Trump’s election was a healthy shock. The shock was necessary. Not only power cartels, but also worldviews are breaking down. This disruption is fruitful. The taboos of the last few years are now fully on the agenda: illegal immigration, Islam, the nonsense of open borders, the dysfunctional EU, the free movement of people, jobs, law and order. Trump’s predecessors did not want to talk about it, but the majority of voters did. This is democracy.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

  • Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook

    © 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Original source: Gatestone Institute

Advertisements

‘This is for Paris’: Russian pilots write messages of support for terror victims on their bombs before launching latest air raids and cruise missile strikes against ISIS

Russian military are inscribing ‘For Paris’ on bombs destined for targets in Syria, in solidarity with the victims of the attacks in the French capital.
A video posted online today by the Defence Minister also shows a member of ground crew writing ‘For Ours’ on a bomb at Russia’s Hmeymim airbase.

Pilots and technicians of Hmeymim airbase have sent their message to terrorists by priority airmail,’ said a caption accompanying the post.
Russia also unleashed cruise missiles from warships in the Caspian Sea at targets across Syria, as Moscow kept up its intensified bombardments in the already war-torn country.

Moscow fired 18 missiles from ships in its Caspian Sea fleet at seven targets in the Raqqa, Idlib and Aleppo provinces, according to Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu.
It was the second time that warships have been used since the start of the bombing campaign on September 30.
Moscow has stepped up its strikes in Syria with long-distance bombers after confirming for the first time on Tuesday that a bomb downed a Russian airliner in Egypt last month, killing all 224 people on board.

President Vladimir Putin was told in a briefing by Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu that cruise missile strikes against one target near the ISIS-controlled city of Deir Ezzor had killed ‘more than 600 fighters’.
But it was not specified when the strike had taken place.
Minister Shoigu also told President Putin that Russian planes destroyed 15 oil refining and storage facilities in Syria and 525 trucks carrying oil during this week’s bombing blitz.

He said this deprived ISIS of $1.5million (£990,000) in daily income from oil sales.
At least eight people were killed in at least 50 air strikes in the eastern Deir Ezzor province today, during which dozens of oil tankers were destroyed, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

The Britain-based Observatory said it had documented at least 50 strikes in different parts of the oil-rich province, large parts of which are controlled by ISIS.
It said dozens of oil tankers and other vehicles used for transporting crude-oil had been destroyed.
This is the first time Deir Ezzor has experienced strikes of this intensity,’ the monitor said.

Russia has also doubled the number of jets it has based in government-held territory in Syria to 69 over the past few days, Shoigu said.
Putin praised the Russian operation in Syria but said it was ‘still not sufficient’ to wipe out the jihadists in the country and that a ‘large volume of work’ lay ahead.
Russia is bombing in Syria at the request of its longstanding ally Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while a US-led coalition is conducting its own air campaign against ISIS.

Russian politicians have said the Paris attack underscores the need for the West and the Kremlin to bury their differences and join forces to take on militants in Syria.
President Putin has discussed cooperating on fighting ISIS during his meetings with President Barack Obama and other Western leaders at the sidelines of the Group of 20 rich and developing nations in Turkey this week.

French President Francois Hollande is set to travel to Washington and Moscow next week for talks on joint military action against ISIS, and Mr Putin has already ordered the military to cooperate with the French.
Russia’s now four-day bombing blitz against the terror group has been relentless.

Moscow flew more than 100 combat sorties on Thursday, following 126 the day before.
Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov said that Russian warplanes were focusing their strikes on the ISIS oil production and refining facilities as well as oil trucks.
Paris also launched air strikes against ISIS’s Syrian stronghold in Raqqa this week, following attacks that killed 130 people in the French capital.
But France was forced to dismiss Russian suggestions today that the air strikes were illegal, insisting they were ‘an appropriate and necessary riposte’ to attacks by ISIS.

France has called for Assad to step down after a political transition, and its Western allies have criticised Moscow for mostly focusing its raids in Syria against Western-backed rebel groups.

Source: Daily Mail

Россия сбросила на боевиков бомбы с надписями «За Париж» и «За наших»

На бомбах, сброшенных российской авиацией на позиции террористов в Сирии, было написано «За наших» и «За Париж». Соответствующее видео опубликовано на странице Минобороны России на YouTube.
«Летчики и техники с авиабазы Хмеймим авиапочтой отправили свое послание террористам», — говорится в тексте, сопровождающем видеозапись.

Ранее министр обороны России Сергей Шойгу доложил президенту Владимиру Путину, что 29 самолетов дальней и бомбардировочной авиации нанесли удары со стороны Каспийского моря по объектам боевиков. Помимо этого, как сообщил глава Минобороны, корабли Каспийской флотилии совершили пуск 18 крылатых ракет по семи целям позиций террористов.

Надписи касаются двух терактов, совершенных «Исламским государством» (деятельность организации запрещена в РФ). Первый произошел 31 октября, когда российский самолет A321 потерпел крушение на Синайском полуострове. Ответственность за произошедшее дважды взяла на себя ИГИЛ; позже причастность террористов к крушению самолета подтвердил глава ФСБ Александр Бортников. Второй произошел в ночь на 14 ноября в Париже, когда террористы «Исламского государства» совершили серию нападений, в результате которых погибли, по последним данным, 130 человек, более 300 получили ранения

Source: RBC.

Ukrainian radicals block trucks to Crimea – media

Activists and radicals of Ukraine’s Right Sector are putting cement bins on the road connecting Ukraine and Crimea, 112.Ukraine television broadcaster reported on Sunday.

Representatives of the Crimean Tatars and of a Ukrainian extremist organisation – Right Sector – which is banned in Russia, begin an ongoing protest to block food supplies to Crimea. They plan to prevent trucks carrying food from getting the goods to Crimea and back to Ukraine.

Right now there are about three hundred people at the road near the Chongar settlement, and more people are getting there by own cars and by busses,” the television channel said. “Not a single truck is nearby now, as at night drivers got recommendations to move further from the border.”

A deputy of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada (parliament), Refat Chubarov, told reporters earlier about a protest due from Sunday, where the participants will block movement of trucks, delivering goods to Crimea, and at the same time protesters will allow cars and pedestrians cross the border.
“Our protest will be long. Our position is the Verkhovna Rada should discuss bills on settlement of relations between mainland Ukraine and occupied Crimea,” he said, adding it is necessary to cancel the law on a free trade zone in Crimea.

Source: Novorossia Today

Assad Must Go? No, American Arrogance Must Go!

What gives Washington DC the right to determine who rules in Syria?

White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest channeled President Obama’s famous chant that “Assad must go” when he claimed during a regular press briefing that:

“The international community has decided that it’s time for Assad to go.  He clearly has lost legitimacy to lead.  He has lost the confidence of those citizens of his country — at least the ones that — or I guess I should say particularly the ones that he is using the resources of the military to attack.”

The arrogance on display is both stupefying and dangerous. The problem in Syria isn’t, nor ever has been, President Assad – it’s always been the US’ arrogance in dictating demands and then militarily enforcing them after they’ve been rejected.

American Arrogance

Syria’s ills are directly traceable to the failure of American foreign policy in the Mideast. The US rabidly went on a regime change streak that began during the Bush years, with former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe for NATO General Wesley Clark revealing in his 2007 memoirs that a senior general showed him a memo and said:

“‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”

Earlier that year, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote an expose in The New Yorker in which he detailed, among other proposed regional regime change specifics, that the Bush Administration was planning to use the Muslim Brotherhood to launch a Gulf-funded sectarian war against the Syrian government.

At the time, the reason was supposedly because of Damascus’ closeness to Tehran, but later information as reported by The Guardian reveals that the decision to build a Friendship Pipeline between Iran, Iraq, and Syria in 2010, and Damascus’ rejection of a similar one from Qatar, likely had a lot to do with why the anti-government terrorist plan was pushed forward for activation the year after.

Beginning in 2011, the Mideast was rocked by the so-called “Arab Spring”, which Russian General Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov would in hindsight categorize as a theater-wide Color Revolution during an official conference on the topic last year in Moscow.

What the US had wanted to do is overthrow all of the Mideast’s republics (even those allied with the US such a Egypt) in order to bring a transnational Muslim Brotherhood clique to power in each of them that would thus make it a lot easier to control the entire region.

Think of it as the neocons’ version of a 21st-century communist party, but directed towards control of the Mideast and not Europe (which has the EU for that).

The Gulf Monarchies were not targeted because of their staunch pro-American allegiance and the potential that any domestic disruption would have in upsetting the US’ economic interests there.

Between the pro-American Gulf Monarchies and the pro-American EU thus lay a handful of republics that weren’t so firmly under the US’ sway (or not at all influenced by it like Syria), so in order for the US to securely control the broad swatch of Afro-Eurasia stretching from Iceland to Yemen, it needed to overthrow those governments, ergo the “Arab Spring” Color Revolutions.

The People’s Will

But something went wrong as it always does with the US’ plans, and it was that the Syrian people wholeheartedly rejected the Muslim Brotherhood’s ploy at regime change, instead favoring to preserve the secular and multicultural society that Syrian civilization is historically known for.

For this simple reason, the Color Revolution attempt was a dismal failure from the very beginning, hence why the US and its allies (notably Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) sought to transform it into an Unconventional War by arming their proxies and ordering them to escalate their soft coup attempt into a hard one.

The resultant Hybrid War that’s been raging for the past four and a half years is thus a manifestation of the US’ geopolitical obsession for regime change. Far from realizing that the people had resoundingly rejected such an approach from the very beginning, the US and its allies dug in by reinforcing their proxy elements inside the country and allowing foreign fighters to flood into Syria via the Turkish border.

Amidst this external onslaught being launched against them, the Syrian people continued to bravely soldier on and democratically show the rest of the world that they supported their government.

A constitutional referendum in 2012passed by an 89% margin and with the participation of 57% of the population, while President Assad was reelectedin 2014 with 88.7% of the vote in which 73% of the electorate took part.

Both sets of numbers trump the civil society participation and political legitimacy of Western countries and their leaders, and as President Assad once said, there is no way he could remain in office during this war if he didn’t truly have the support of the vast majority of the population.

It’s also telling that most of the country’s refugees haven’t fled the country, but have instead decided to stay in their homeland and seek safety under the protection of the Syrian Arab Army, which currently provides security to around 80% of Syria’s citizens.

Be that as it is, the US and its allies stubbornly ignored the people’s will, and instead continued to blindly pump weapons and fighters into the country in clear confirmation of the adage that insanity is “repeating the same thing over again but expecting different results”.

Ground Zero In The War On Terror

All of those fighters and weapons that the US and its allies were shipping into Syria were bound to lead to some major problems, chief among them the rise of ISIL, but this was actually predicted and supported by the US government a couple years ago. Judicial Watch published a declassified report that it received in May from a Freedom Of Information Act request that proves that the Pentagon’s Defense Information Agency thought that:

“If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

This bombshell dovetails with what Syrian Ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad recently said in an interview where he accused the US of using terrorism to promote regime change in his country. President Putin followed up at the CSTO summit by warning countries of the risks inherent in employing double-standards towards terrorists and directly or indirectly using them to further certain tactical objectives.

In order to stem the tide of terror that the US unleashed in the Mideast, Russia is rapidly moving forward with assembling an inclusive anti-ISIL coalition, and President Putin is expected to use his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly later this month to make his case that the situation is far too pressing to care about regime change, and that the world must unite in supporting Syria as it fights on its behalf on the frontlines against terror.

American arrogance got the world into this mess, but if you ask Russia, it’ll be Syrian humility that gets it out in one piece.

Source: Russia Insider